IF programming language
Dan
programming lnaguage but I can't find anything so far. I know C/C++. If
anyone one has any helpful info that would be appreciated. Thanks.
Roger Firth
news:WXDR9.34133$NV.7...@news.direcpc.com...
> I have been searching on the net for a while for ways to make your own IF
> programming lnaguage but I can't find anything so far. I know C/C++. If
> anyone one has any helpful info that would be appreciated. Thanks.
Make your own /language/? Or use an existing language
specially designed for IF? If the latter, perhaps start here:
http://www.firthworks.com/roger/cloak/
And if you really want to create your own language, still
start there, so that you've some idea what you're up against.
Cheers, Roger
--
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
You'll find my Cloak of Darkness, Parsifal, Informary
and more at http://www.firthworks.com/roger/
Sean Don
If you _really_ want to make your own language, then you probably must
realize that it'll take you a very long time.
Yes, looking at the Inform and TADS source code and libraries is a good
idea; however, rather than jump directly into the heavy stuff, one can
consider a few articles/books that talk about the basic, simplified theory
behind developing a good parser. Many many years ago, for example, I used
to read LaMothe's books; they were books that talked about basic Video
Game structure; more specifically, he had a book called "Teach yourself
Game Programming" that had a few chapters on developing a parser for text
games.
Of course, these are tips from a person who never actually wrote his own
parser! Alas, if I were to, I would, like I said, start with the theory
before jumping into the heavier stuff --afterall, I think I looked at the
Inform source code once; it's not too easy to read.
Sean
Benjamin Fan
writing a compiler/interpreter for that language. This is assuming
that you will be using an already-existing machine. If not, then
you'll need to write that as well. In either case, you probably
will also need to write your own game system library so that your
language can be abstract and simple for IF authors.
In either case, I suggest reading books on computer system
architecture and compiler design. The architecture book is so you
will know how computer machines works and compiler book is so you
can learn how to construct a parser and compiler for your language.
Be warned that these are advanced computer science topics. As a
prerequisite, you'll probably need to learn discrete mathematics and
also the theory of computation.
The books that I am familiar with are "Computer System
Architecture" by Mano, "Principles of Compiler Design" by Aho,
Sethi, and Ullman, and "Introduction to the Theory of Computation"
by Sipser. I've also heard good things about the compiler books
by Appel. You might also want to read the specification of
existing machines such as the Z-machine and GLULX specifications.
Reading the documentation for FLEX and Bison will help you to
generate the parser for your language.
On a related note, would anyone else be interested in working
on a free (GPL or BSD license), cleanroom implementation of an
Inform (or possibly some other language) compiler for the GLULX
virtual machine? I believe that there is a need for a free IF
compiler, but I've determined that it is too complex a project for
me to handle by myself at this time (and trying to understand
computation theory makes my head hurt).
If you do decide to make your own language, you have my
admiration and best wishes. I once thought about doing that, but I
gave up and instead decided to just write an IF game system library,
for an existing language, for an existing machine (JIGSAW, for Java,
for the Java VM).
Ben
"Dan" <dan...@direcway.com> wrote in message news:<WXDR9.34133$NV.7...@news.direcpc.com>...
> I have been searching on the net for a while for ways to make your own IF
> programming lnaguage but I can't find anything so far. I know C/C++. If
> anyone one has any helpful info that would be appreciated. Thanks.
--
To get my current email address, concatenate these three strings:
1. "benjamin_fan" 2. "_2002a" 3. "@yahoo.com"
It will look a lot like: xxxxxxxx_yyy_zzzzz @ yahoo . com
L. Ross Raszewski
<junkaccou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On a related note, would anyone else be interested in working
>on a free (GPL or BSD license), cleanroom implementation of an
>Inform (or possibly some other language) compiler for the GLULX
>virtual machine? I believe that there is a need for a free IF
>compiler, but I've determined that it is too complex a project for
>me to handle by myself at this time (and trying to understand
>computation theory makes my head hurt).
>
>
I don't quite understand what you mean by "There is a need for a free
IF compiler": almost all of the popular IF compilers are free
already. If you mean 'free' in the GPL sense (which seems unlikely,
since you also suggest a BSD license), then this needs some more
justification, since we have many times examined and found
inconclusive the supposition that a GPL-like license is well-suited to
IF-related thingies.
Alex Watson
>>On a related note, would anyone else be interested in working
>>on a free (GPL or BSD license), cleanroom implementation of an
>>Inform (or possibly some other language) compiler for the GLULX
>>virtual machine? I believe that there is a need for a free IF
>>compiler, but I've determined that it is too complex a project for
>>me to handle by myself at this time (and trying to understand
>>computation theory makes my head hurt).
>>
>>
>
> I don't quite understand what you mean by "There is a need for a free
> IF compiler": almost all of the popular IF compilers are free
> already. If you mean 'free' in the GPL sense (which seems unlikely,
> since you also suggest a BSD license)
BSD-licensed things are Free in the GPL (FSF) sense as well, so I'd
assume this is what was meant.
Benjamin Fan
(http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines). Basically,
I am looking for the following freedoms.
1. Freedom to use the software.
2. Freedom to redistribute the software.
3. Freedom to make modifications and to redistribute the modified
versions. This requires free access to the source code.
I've looked at the terms and conditions of the existing IF
compilers (Inform, TADS, Hugo, etc.). As I understand it, there
are no compilers that are free, under this definition. Please let
me know if I am mistaken.
Yes, a copyleft license like GPL may not be suited for an IF
compiler or game system since authors want to be able to publish
their works without being required to make their source code
available. However, there are other non-copyleft, free licenses
that could be used.
Ben
lrasz...@loyola.edu (L. Ross Raszewski) wrote:
> I don't quite understand what you mean by "There is a need for a free
> IF compiler": almost all of the popular IF compilers are free
> already. If you mean 'free' in the GPL sense (which seems unlikely,
> since you also suggest a BSD license), then this needs some more
> justification, since we have many times examined and found
> inconclusive the supposition that a GPL-like license is well-suited to
> IF-related thingies.
--
Andrew Plotkin
> lrasz...@loyola.edu (L. Ross Raszewski) wrote:
>> If you mean 'free' in the GPL sense (which seems unlikely,
>> since you also suggest a BSD license), then this needs some more
>> justification, since we have many times examined and found
>> inconclusive the supposition that a GPL-like license is well-suited to
>> IF-related thingies.
> I mean "free" as defined in the Debian Free Software Guidelines
> (http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines). Basically,
> I am looking for the following freedoms.
> 1. Freedom to use the software.
> 2. Freedom to redistribute the software.
> 3. Freedom to make modifications and to redistribute the modified
> versions. This requires free access to the source code.
> I've looked at the terms and conditions of the existing IF
> compilers (Inform, TADS, Hugo, etc.). As I understand it, there
> are no compilers that are free, under this definition. Please let
> me know if I am mistaken.
That's correct, but again, it's not clear that this is a problem which
needs to be fixed. There does not seem to be a current pressing need
to modify Inform, for example. The time that I *did* feel a pressing
need to modify Inform (for Glulx), I was able to get permission to do
it, and the modified version is now in use. Beyond that, there's a
patch site for small fixes (which is awkward, but is not stopping
authors from getting the fixes).
That's for compilers. On the interpreter side of the line, I think
there *is* motivation to have a bunch of programs with various
licenses. And for Inform, at least, that's what we have. You can find
Z-code interpreters from GPL to BSD to "provenance unknown", and the
Glulx terp is (I hope) BSD-style.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Sean Don
On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 17:27:48 GMT
Sean Don <sea...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Of course, these are tips from a person who never actually wrote his own
> parser! Alas, if I were to, I would, like I said, start with the theory
> before jumping into the heavier stuff --afterall, I think I looked at the
> Inform source code once; it's not too easy to read.
Speaking of free IF languages, I realize now that the source code I looked at several years ago must not have been Inform's; it was the source code to the original Zork interpreter/game --which is probably still available in numerous different archives.
Sean
Kevin Forchione
news:9ea00d5e.03010...@posting.google.com...
> I mean "free" as defined in the Debian Free Software Guidelines
> (http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines). Basically,
> I am looking for the following freedoms.
>
> 1. Freedom to use the software.
> 2. Freedom to redistribute the software.
> 3. Freedom to make modifications and to redistribute the modified
> versions. This requires free access to the source code.
>
> I've looked at the terms and conditions of the existing IF
> compilers (Inform, TADS, Hugo, etc.). As I understand it, there
> are no compilers that are free, under this definition. Please let
> me know if I am mistaken.
And *why* would you want such a thing? If the compilers for the existing
languages are in some way inadequate for what they are designed to do, then
their authors should be informed of the situation. On the other hand, these
compilers have been successfully ported to many platforms without the need
for such a license.
The fact that such a compiler for one of the currently existing systems
*could* first be written, and *then* have a license slapped on it say that
it is _free_ simply for the purpose of allowing variances to be introduced
into the source code does not seem very _responsible_.
But then we've done this discussion to death already. Nobody seems to be
able to justify just what they need this _freedom_ for.
--Kevin
Nikos Chantziaras
Benjamin Fan wrote:
> [...]
> Yes, a copyleft license like GPL may not be suited for an IF
> compiler or game system since authors want to be able to publish
> their works without being required to make their source code
> available. However, there are other non-copyleft, free licenses
> that could be used.
It is possible to use the GPL for this. Look how the GNU C++ standard
library (libstdc++) uses the GPL; it includes a so-called "special
exception" in the license.
For example, in:
http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/libstdc%2b%2b/bits/std_string.h
?rev=1.24&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&cvsroot=libstdc%2b%2b
you can find following note:
[...]
As a special exception, you may use this file as part of a free
software library without restriction. Specifically, if other files
instantiate templates or use macros or inline functions from this
file, or you compile this file and link it with other files to
produce an executable, this file does not by itself cause the
resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public
License. This exception does not however invalidate any other
reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU General
Public License.
As for what is allowed and what not in such a "special exception", well, I'm
not quite sure.
-- Niko
Quintin Stone
First, ask yourself why you want to spend the time and effort creating a
new IF language from scratch when there are so many that already exist and
do such a bang up job as it is. If you can come up with a good answer,
then go for it. But personally, I can't see it as anything but a road map
for pain and frustration. :) This coming from a guy who's written his own
parsers and text games from scratch.
/====================================================================\
|| Quintin Stone O- > "You speak of necessary evil? One ||
|| Weapons Master & Coder < of those necessities is that if ||
|| Rebel Programmers Society > innocents must suffer, the guilty must ||
|| st...@rps.net < suffer more." -- Mackenzie Calhoun ||
|| http://www.rps.net/ > "Once Burned" by Peter David ||
\====================================================================/
Gadget
wrote:
>On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Dan wrote:
>
>> I have been searching on the net for a while for ways to make your own
>> IF programming lnaguage but I can't find anything so far. I know C/C++.
>> If anyone one has any helpful info that would be appreciated. Thanks.
>
>First, ask yourself why you want to spend the time and effort creating a
>new IF language from scratch when there are so many that already exist and
>do such a bang up job as it is. If you can come up with a good answer,
>then go for it. But personally, I can't see it as anything but a road map
>for pain and frustration. :) This coming from a guy who's written his own
>parsers and text games from scratch.
>
Well, even though I agree with you completely, I still miss 'the good
old days' when I wrote My own parsers from scratch, too.
I was so proud when I constructed my first full sentence parser in
QuickBasic... Using Inform is great but somehow it feels a bit like
cheating and standing on the shoulders of the work others have done
for me...
But then again, a couple of years ago I started work on my own IF
language. And I discovered that it is a lot better to stand on the
work of others and create a nice game then stubbornly try to reinvent
the wheel. So I abandoned my system when I discovered the mainstream
IF languages. I still have it on an old HD and once I have Linux
re-installed I will upload the thing as a warning to others...
-------------
It's a bird...
It's a plane...
No, it's... Gadget?
-------------------
To send mail remove SPAMBLOCK from adress.
Elber
or engine.
Not trying to sound negative, but you're dealing with an entrenched
mentality here. You're on your own.
Good luck, though. I think it will be a worthwhile effort if you're up to
it.
"Dan" <dan...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:WXDR9.34133$NV.7...@news.direcpc.com...
Lucian P. Smith
: I have been searching on the net for a while for ways to make your own IF
: programming lnaguage but I can't find anything so far. I know C/C++. If
: anyone one has any helpful info that would be appreciated. Thanks.
If you do decide to code up your own language, consider making the I/O
interface Glulx:
http://www.eblong.com/zarf/glulx/
If you do, we'll all already have interpreters which can run games based
on your new language.
-Lucian
Mike Roberts
> "Dan" <dan...@direcway.com> wrote:
> > I have been searching on the net for a while for ways to
> > make your own IF programming lnaguage but I can't find
> > anything so far.
>
> IF language or engine.
Actually, I think you'll find lots of help here. But it's not in the form
of a tutorial on creating an IF system, or a recipe for writing a parser, or
a block of pseudo-code that implements a fully functional compiler; instead,
it's the large base of past raif articles on the nature of the problem.
What you can learn here is how the existing systems approach the problem,
and where authors run up against the limits of the existing systems. If you
want to build a better mousetrap, it's worth knowing what's wrong with the
current ones. The information isn't exactly in a neatly digested form, but
it's there for anyone who wants to spend the time studying it.
If you don't care about pushing the limits, if you just want to build your
own system for the intellectual challenge, then I don't think you could do
much better than to study the existing systems. Most of the systems are
available for free, are well-documented, and even make their complete source
code available. What's more, raif is frequented by experts on many of these
systems, who can often provide insights on why particular things work the
way they do and why particular decisions were made by the systems'
designers. Obviously, you're not going to get a lot of helpful responses
from a question like "how does Inform work?", but you probably will from
something like "why does TADS have separate adjectives and nouns?"
> Not trying to sound negative, but you're dealing with an
> entrenched mentality here. You're on your own.
I really don't think there's any "entrenched mentality" here that you have
to work against if you want to build your own system. I know it can
sometimes look that way, and maybe there are a few raif'ers who dislike the
very idea of new systems coming along, but most of us honestly have nothing
against new systems per se. Yes, there's a conventional wisdom that it's
really hard to build a good system, and a lot of skepticism whenever anyone
announces their grand plans for a new system; but that's based on actual
experience that most people who try to build a system never finish - and
even among those who finish, few end up achieving parity with the best
existing systems, much less breaking any new ground. That's the "mentality"
that informs those why-reinvent-the-wheel posts. They aren't trying to be
discouraging for the sake of negativity; they're just trying to make sure
the aspiring system-writer realizes that there are already some good systems
out there, in case they thought the best IF tools available were BASIC
interpreters and C++ compilers.
You seem to be insinuating that this "mentality" makes raif'ers less helpful
than they by rights ought to be when it comes to aspiring system-writers, as
though we clam up around newcomers and jealously guard our Secret Protocols
of the System Builders. But, come on; "how do I write an IF system" is just
not a question that can be answered with a few simple paragraphs. There are
no easy tricks that, once revealed, make system building a snap. No one's
written a book on the subject because it's a really hard book to write.
Maybe someone will write that book at some point, but until then, it does
take a certain investment of effort to learn how to build a system. "You're
on your own" is rather too dramatic. With the abundance of available system
source code and archived discussions, one hardly has to start from scratch.
True, one can't expect a lot of hand-holding; but given the scope of the
problem, someone who needs a lot of hand-holding isn't going to get very far
anyway.
--Mike
mjr underscore at hotmail dot com
John W. Kennedy
> First, ask yourself why you want to spend the time and effort creating a
> new IF language from scratch when there are so many that already exist and
> do such a bang up job as it is.
It might be a worthwhile experiment to create a LISP or LISP-like engine
for, say, Glulx. But yet another C-like or C++-like language doesn't
seem worth it.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly;
the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton, "The Man Who Was Thursday"
Gadget
<jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>Quintin Stone wrote:
>
>> First, ask yourself why you want to spend the time and effort creating a
>> new IF language from scratch when there are so many that already exist and
>> do such a bang up job as it is.
>
>It might be a worthwhile experiment to create a LISP or LISP-like engine
>for, say, Glulx. But yet another C-like or C++-like language doesn't
>seem worth it.
Hm... Isn't that the real question? What *kind* of language would we
want and what features should it have? I know I can do a lot in
Inform, but sometimes I really miss some basic-like string handling,
for example for parsing topics. Just MID$ would be a great tool... ;-)
But it's not about the little details, is it? It's about *style*. I
wouldn't mind seeing something very unlike C to write IF in. Just for
kicks ;-)
Gadget
wrote:
Can you do that (he asked wide eyed)? Create a compiler for Glux which
compiles another language to a glux executable?
Yoon Ha Lee
> Hm... Isn't that the real question? What *kind* of language would we
> want and what features should it have? I know I can do a lot in
> Inform, but sometimes I really miss some basic-like string handling,
> for example for parsing topics. Just MID$ would be a great tool... ;-)
I'd *love* to see an IF programming language with LISP/Scheme syntax.
(I adored taking Structure & Interpretation of Computer Programs in
undergrad in Dylan.) It's not that I don't like Inform, but that the
beauty of LISP/Scheme impressed me greatly, and it'd make programming IF
an added pleasure, not that I've had time lately to *revise* IF, let
alone *write* IF (working full-time now, teaching HS math).
YHL
dgr...@cs.csbuak.edu
>> First, ask yourself why you want to spend the time and effort creating a
>> new IF language from scratch when there are so many that already exist and
>> do such a bang up job as it is.
> It might be a worthwhile experiment to create a LISP or LISP-like engine
> for, say, Glulx. But yet another C-like or C++-like language doesn't
> seem worth it.
On that LISP thing, does anyone know if there are enough fragments of
original ZIL code lying around to allow someone that language? Perhaps
some of the old Infocom crew could be pumped for info.
--
David Griffith
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
> Hm... Isn't that the real question? What *kind* of language would we
> want and what features should it have? I know I can do a lot in
> Inform, but sometimes I really miss some basic-like string handling,
> for example for parsing topics. Just MID$ would be a great tool... ;-)
> But it's not about the little details, is it? It's about *style*. I
> wouldn't mind seeing something very unlike C to write IF in. Just for
> kicks ;-)
I'm currently writing "An Interactive Environment Engine" (yes, it's
named "Aiee!") in Java, using XML for the world definition. It's about
as different from other IF languages as you can get. It's primarily a
world description, not a programming language with rooms and items
tacked on the side.
The client's pretty weird, too. I'm designing it to be easier to use
from a Palm Pilot (much less mandatory typing than usual), and it'll be
easy to make a fully-graphical client for. In some ways the interface
is very primitive, more like first-generation parsers.
It is pretty capable--I've been using "Cloak of Darkness" as the
sample adventure to drive development, and it's easy to express the game
in it. Right now I can move around, but can't solve the game yet.
Here's what the foyer from cloak.xml looks like:
<room id="foyer" name="Foyer of the Opera House">
<look>
<text>You are standing in a spacious hall, splendidly decorated in red
and gold, with glittering chandeliers overhead. The entrance from the
street is to the north, and there are doorways south and west.</text>
</look>
<exit dir="s" room="bar"/>
<exit dir="w" room="cloakroom"/>
<exit dir="n">
<text>You've only just arrived, and besides, the weather outside seems to
be getting worse.</text>
</exit>
</room>
But my intent in developing it is more as a tool for computer-assisted
or fully-random adventure generation--it's easier to generate XML than
source for most IF languages, and I needed control over the language. I
doubt that there's a horde of potential IF authors who like typing angle
brackets.
If you just want "not like C", try ALAN.
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"We remain convinced that this is the best defensive posture to adopt in
order to minimize casualties when the Great Old Ones return from beyond
the stars to eat our brains." -Charlie Stross, _The Concrete Jungle_
David Betz
<dgr...@cs.csbuak.edu> wrote in message
news:avdbt6$1hsor$1...@hades.csu.net...
dgr...@cs.csbuak.edu
> <dgr...@cs.csbuak.edu> wrote in message
> news:avdbt6$1hsor$1...@hades.csu.net...
>>
>> original ZIL code lying around to allow someone that language? Perhaps
>> some of the old Infocom crew could be pumped for info.
> I've got a copy of the ZIL programmers manual. What would you like to know?
Where'd you get that? I'd be interested in using it as a reference to
implement ZIL sometime.
--
David Griffith
David Betz
time, I was working on contract with Activision (the owners of Infocom) to
provide them with a modified version of my AdvSys IF language for use in one
of their games.
<dgr...@cs.csbuak.edu> wrote in message
news:avdgjf$1hsno$1...@hades.csu.net...
John W. Kennedy
> On 6 Jan 2003 22:32:04 GMT, "Lucian P. Smith" <lps...@rice.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Dan <dan...@direcway.com> wrote in <WXDR9.34133$NV.7...@news.direcpc.com>:
>>: I have been searching on the net for a while for ways to make your own IF
>>: programming lnaguage but I can't find anything so far. I know C/C++. If
>>: anyone one has any helpful info that would be appreciated. Thanks.
>>
>>If you do decide to code up your own language, consider making the I/O
>>interface Glulx:
>>
>>http://www.eblong.com/zarf/glulx/
>>
>>If you do, we'll all already have interpreters which can run games based
>>on your new language.
>>
>>-Lucian
>
>
> Can you do that (he asked wide eyed)? Create a compiler for Glux which
> compiles another language to a glux executable?
There seems to be some confusion here.
A) The I/O interface is Glk, not Glulx. Glulx is a whole virtual
machine that uses Glk to do its I/O.
B) Yes, Glulx is a full-function virtual machine, not all that terribly
tied to Inform. In theory, you could write a FORTRAN compiler for it.
Heck, you could write a COBOL compiler for it.
C) But, as I said earlier, I think a LISP or LISP-like system would be
far more interesting. The original Zork was written in MDL, a LISP-like
language. The Infocom games were written in ZIL, a derivative of MDL.
LISP and its derivatives have been the classic idiom of A.I., and such
languages are especially well suited for both natural-language parsing
and world modeling.
Benjamin Fan
> And *why* would you want such a thing? If the compilers for the existing
> languages are in some way inadequate for what they are designed to do, then
> their authors should be informed of the situation. On the other hand, these
> compilers have been successfully ported to many platforms without the need
> for such a license.
> able to justify just what they need this _freedom_ for.
This opinion may not be shared by all, but personally these
freedoms are very important to me, and I find the lack of free
IF software to be a major deficiency.
What do I need these freedoms for? I need them to be
reassured that if I take the time and effort to learn
"System X" and to write works of IF using System X, then my
efforts will not be wasted because System X can never be taken
away from me. Free software licenses like the GPL assure me that
software will always be available for my use.
Without these freedoms, there is no guarantee that System X
will not be restricted in the future. As much as I trust the
current owners of all the existing IF systems, there is no
guarantee that the next owners will be as generous. I am not
being paranoid about this-- these sorts of things have happened
before when the rights to previously freely-available software
get acquired by another company which then decides to make the
software no longer available (or no longer available without a
price).
I also find value in being self-sufficient. If I want to
modify software to suit my needs, I would like the ability to
change it myself. I do not want to have to depend on someone
else to do it or to be required to seek their permission
beforehand. If I were to use non-free software owned by someone
else, then I would not have this freedom.
On a more philosophical note, I also do not find it comforting
to be enclosed in a cage-- no matter how large the cage or how
generous the jailer. I'm not sure if I can further justify to you
the value of not being locked in a cage, but perhaps the analogy
will be enough to explain my values. (Of course, there are also
people who do not mind being in cages, but again I am not one of
them.)
Ben
Andrew Plotkin
> What do I need these freedoms for? I need them to be
> reassured that if I take the time and effort to learn
> "System X" and to write works of IF using System X, then my
> efforts will not be wasted because System X can never be taken
> away from me. Free software licenses like the GPL assure me that
> software will always be available for my use.
The Inform license says that the compiler can be distributed freely.
Therefore, it cannot be taken away from you. There will always be
copies on the Archive (and other such places).
The worst the copyright owner can do is to forbid there ever being
another official version of the compiler. Even if that occurs, updates
could be maintained indefinitely as a set of patches.
dgr...@cs.csbuak.edu
> I got it when Infocom was closing down their office in Cambridge. At the
> time, I was working on contract with Activision (the owners of Infocom) to
> provide them with a modified version of my AdvSys IF language for use in one
> of their games.
Odd. I thought all traces of that language ZIL have disappeared except
for tiny fragments, one of which is reproduced in the IDM4.
--
David Griffith
Gadget
Fan) wrote:
> What do I need these freedoms for? I need them to be
>reassured that if I take the time and effort to learn
>"System X" and to write works of IF using System X, then my
>efforts will not be wasted because System X can never be taken
>away from me. Free software licenses like the GPL assure me that
>software will always be available for my use.
>
By that reasoning you should never, ever have touched a computer in
your life. Or anything else for that matter. Because 'THEY' might take
it away from you...
> Without these freedoms, there is no guarantee that System X
>will not be restricted in the future. As much as I trust the
>current owners of all the existing IF systems, there is no
>guarantee that the next owners will be as generous. I am not
>being paranoid about this--
Well, maybe a bit, aren 't you?
>these sorts of things have happened
>before when the rights to previously freely-available software
>get acquired by another company which then decides to make the
>software no longer available (or no longer available without a
>price).
And we all know how much money is made from IF these days...
> I also find value in being self-sufficient. If I want to
>modify software to suit my needs, I would like the ability to
>change it myself. I do not want to have to depend on someone
>else to do it or to be required to seek their permission
>beforehand. If I were to use non-free software owned by someone
>else, then I would not have this freedom.
>
So basically, you don't want to use someone else's system, even though
it might suit your needs perfectly, because you want to do everything
yourself with no help from others?
> On a more philosophical note, I also do not find it comforting
>to be enclosed in a cage-- no matter how large the cage or how
>generous the jailer. I'm not sure if I can further justify to you
>the value of not being locked in a cage, but perhaps the analogy
>will be enough to explain my values. (Of course, there are also
>people who do not mind being in cages, but again I am not one of
>them.)
>
>Ben
I appreciate your urge to be free, but again: by this reasoning you
shouldn't ever have touched a computer in your life. Computers *are*
cages. They have robbed me of my free time since 1983...
Magnus Olsson
Yoon Ha Lee <yl...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>Gadget <gad...@SPAMBLOCKhaha.demon.nl> wrote:
>
>> Hm... Isn't that the real question? What *kind* of language would we
>> want and what features should it have? I know I can do a lot in
>> Inform, but sometimes I really miss some basic-like string handling,
>> for example for parsing topics. Just MID$ would be a great tool... ;-)
>
>I'd *love* to see an IF programming language with LISP/Scheme syntax.
Have you looked at Dave Betz's Advsys?
<http://mirror.ifarchive.org/indexes/if-archiveXprogrammingXadvsys.html>
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se)
Benjamin Fan
> The Inform license says that the compiler can be distributed freely.
> Therefore, it cannot be taken away from you. There will always be
> copies on the Archive (and other such places).
>
> The worst the copyright owner can do is to forbid there ever being
> another official version of the compiler. Even if that occurs, updates
> could be maintained indefinitely as a set of patches.
The license gives permission to distribute, but it
states that distributed copies cannot be "substantially
different from those archived by the author". This is
somewhat ambiguous (how do you define "substantially
different"?), and I believe that the most conservative
legal interpretation would be that distributing any
modified version is not allowed-- even versions
designated as "non-official".
The license also has a "no profit" clause which does
not seem to meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
The term "no profit involved" is ambiguous, but the
conservative legal interpretation would seem to imply that
no money can be exchanged in any capacity when Inform is
distributed.
I suppose that it could be argued that that the
original Inform could be distributed on a disk along with
the modifications in patch format. Also, I suppose that
one could argue that it is allowable to charge money for
the disk and patches, and that Inform itself is being given
away as a free bonus. However, given the wording of the
license, I do not think that these arguments would hold
if the lawyers/solicitors were to come calling.
Have there been any additional permissions granted
that are not in the license text included with Inform
6.21.3? Have any written clarifications of the license ever
been made? Perhaps the license sections for which I have
concerns have since been clarified or modified.
The full text of the Inform license is below:
Copyright on Inform, the program and its source code, its example games
and documentation (including this book) is retained by Graham Nelson,
who asserts the moral right to be identified as the author under the
Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Having said this, I am happy
for it to be freely distributed to anybody who wants a copy, provided
that: (a) distributed copies are not substantially different from those
archived by the author, (b) this and other copyright messages are
always retained in full, and (c) no profit is involved. (Exceptions to
these rules must be negotiated directly with the author.) However, a
story file produced with the Inform compiler (and libraries) then
belongs to its author, and may be sold for profit if desired, provided
that its game banner contains the information that it was compiled by
Inform, and the Inform version number.
Ben
P.S. Looking at the license again, I also notice that permission
to distribute Inform is not actually granted. "I am happy for it
to be freely distributed" does not have the same meaning as "I
grant permission to you to freely distribute it."
Matthew Russotto
Some people have darkly hinted that they have the original sources for
Zork (check Google), so I doubt that's so.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Quintin Stone
> Hm... Isn't that the real question? What *kind* of language would we
> want and what features should it have?
Ooh, how about a Perl-based language. :) I don't mean written in Perl, I
mean with Perl-style syntax.
Quintin Stone
> I'm currently writing "An Interactive Environment Engine" (yes, it's
> named "Aiee!") in Java, using XML for the world definition. It's about
> as different from other IF languages as you can get. It's primarily a
> world description, not a programming language with rooms and items
> tacked on the side.
Hey, that looks pretty interesting so far. Can't wait to see more of it.
Andrew Plotkin
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Gadget wrote:
>> Hm... Isn't that the real question? What *kind* of language would we
>> want and what features should it have?
> Ooh, how about a Perl-based language. :) I don't mean written in Perl, I
> mean with Perl-style syntax.
This road leads to madness. If you want Perl-style syntax, use Perl
already. The whole point of Perl is that no subset of Perl satisfies
very many Perl programmers...
(Okay, I do wish Inform had more C-like syntax, but C is a pain to
compile to a VM. Perl already has a VM.)
L. Ross Raszewski
All these arguments seem to support a position that the inform
license should be reworded with an eye toward the law, not that it
should be GPL. The fact that inform's license is ambiguous is not an
argument for using a different license, just for using a differently
worded one.
Mark W
news:9ea00d5e.03010...@posting.google.com:
> The license gives permission to distribute, but it
> states that distributed copies cannot be "substantially
> different from those archived by the author". This is
> somewhat ambiguous (how do you define "substantially
> different"?), and I believe that the most conservative
> legal interpretation would be that distributing any
> modified version is not allowed-- even versions
> designated as "non-official".
I'm not a lawer and I don't know much about copyright law, but if a version
of Inform were substantially different, would it still be Inform?
Regards,
Mark
--
http://www.marktaw.com/
Mark W
news:v86l1vogc7rth7mvo...@4ax.com:
>> What do I need these freedoms for? I need them to be
>>reassured that if I take the time and effort to learn
>>"System X" and to write works of IF using System X, then my
>>efforts will not be wasted because System X can never be taken
>>away from me. Free software licenses like the GPL assure me that
>>software will always be available for my use.
>
> By that reasoning you should never, ever have touched a computer in
> your life. Or anything else for that matter. Because 'THEY' might take
> it away from you...
True... Isn't Windows' license revokable? And isn't the RIAA/DMCA all about
giving us a license to a copy of a piece of music so they can exhibit more
control over what we do with it under that license agreement?
Ross Presser
@reader1.panix.com:
> This road leads to madness. If you want Perl-style syntax, use Perl
> already. The whole point of Perl is that no subset of Perl satisfies
> very many Perl programmers...
>
And here I thought that Perl-style syntax ITSELF led to madness. :)
Andrew Plotkin
Oh, we're all mad here.
Admiral Jota
> On a more philosophical note, I also do not find it comforting
>to be enclosed in a cage-- no matter how large the cage or how
>generous the jailer. I'm not sure if I can further justify to you
>the value of not being locked in a cage, but perhaps the analogy
>will be enough to explain my values. (Of course, there are also
>people who do not mind being in cages, but again I am not one of
>them.)
I agree with that to some agree, and that's the biggest problem I have
with GPL: it's a cage. No matter how well meaning the designer is, if he
or she puts a GPL license on a set of libraries used for writing IF, that
designer is seriously restricting everyone who wants to use those
libraries. I am not willing to be caged like that when I write IF; I'd
much rather use a free system like Inform, which doesn't take away my
freedom to use whatever license I wish for my own creations.
--
_/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_
\<-= jo...@shelltown.com =->/
Benjamin Fan
> I agree with that to some agree, and that's the biggest problem I have
> with GPL: it's a cage. No matter how well meaning the designer is, if he
> or she puts a GPL license on a set of libraries used for writing IF, that
> designer is seriously restricting everyone who wants to use those
> libraries. I am not willing to be caged like that when I write IF; I'd
> much rather use a free system like Inform, which doesn't take away my
> freedom to use whatever license I wish for my own creations.
I wouldn't call GPL a cage which encloses people, but it
is a restrictive system since it does restrict you from caging
yourself or others. Perhaps the analogy might be that GPL is
a locked cage where you (and everyone else) is on the outside.
You are restricted from going inside and getting locked in and
from locking others inside as well.
On a personal level, I still feel that GPL is "more free"
than the Inform license because the GPL makes me feel encouraged
to write IF while Inform's license makes me feel discouraged to
do so. I think that it all depends on what things you perceive
to be inside the cage, what things you perceive to be on the
outside, what things you value, and which side of the cage you
believe they are on.
Perhaps instead of GPL, when we talk about free software for
interactive fiction, we should assume that we are talking about
a BSD-style license. This style of license allows you to take
free code and use it in proprietary works, which IF authors seem
to value.
David Given
Gadget <gad...@SPAMBLOCKhaha.demon.nl> writes:
[...]
> Hm... Isn't that the real question? What *kind* of language would we
> Inform, but sometimes I really miss some basic-like string handling,
> for example for parsing topics. Just MID$ would be a great tool... ;-)
Hmm.
baZic, that half-baked, half-finished Z-machine Basic implementation I did,
has a fully working and portable garbage collector that I, although biased,
think is pretty nifty.
It shouldn't be terribly hard to rip it out and build a string handling
library around it. This should allow you to do things like:
s = CreateString("Hello, world!");
s1 = MidString(s, 3, 3);
s2 = RightString(s, 4);
s = ConcatString(s1, s2);
print s;
--> lo,rld!
Of course, now I've designed it, it's just a small matter of implementing
it...
> But it's not about the little details, is it? It's about *style*. I
> wouldn't mind seeing something very unlike C to write IF in. Just for
> kicks ;-)
How about Smalltalk? I'm currently working on a small and simple Smalltalk
implementation. Building an IF environment on it should be fairly trivial
(inasmuch as building IF environments are *ever* trivial).
--
+- David Given --McQ-+ "Safe upon the solid rock
| d...@cowlark.com | The ugly houses stand.
| (d...@tao-group.com) | Come and see my shining palace
+- www.cowlark.com --+ Built upon the sand." --- Edna St.Vincent Millay
Gadget
wrote:
>
>baZic, that half-baked, half-finished Z-machine Basic implementation I did,
>has a fully working and portable garbage collector that I, although biased,
>think is pretty nifty.
>
>It shouldn't be terribly hard to rip it out and build a string handling
>library around it. This should allow you to do things like:
>
>s = CreateString("Hello, world!");
>s1 = MidString(s, 3, 3);
>s2 = RightString(s, 4);
>s = ConcatString(s1, s2);
>print s;
>
>--> lo,rld!
>
>Of course, now I've designed it, it's just a small matter of implementing
>it...
That sounds like a great extension... It would be great if a topic
could be dissected in this way... This very issue is keeping me up at
night with my new game, since most of the intro is based on
conversation...
David Thornley
L. Ross Raszewski <lrasz...@loyola.edu> wrote:
>On 4 Jan 2003 17:35:01 -0800, Benjamin Fan
><junkaccou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> On a related note, would anyone else be interested in working
>>on a free (GPL or BSD license), cleanroom implementation of an
>>Inform (or possibly some other language) compiler for the GLULX
>>virtual machine?
Personally, I think that doing a cleanroom Inform implementation
is probably less desirable than a new language. Others may
disagree.
I believe that there is a need for a free IF
>>compiler, but I've determined that it is too complex a project for
>>me to handle by myself at this time (and trying to understand
>>computation theory makes my head hurt).
>>
When I was floundering in grad school, it seemed to me that
compilers was the hardest course out there: it required heavy
theory and serious programming, both.
>
>I don't quite understand what you mean by "There is a need for a free
>IF compiler": almost all of the popular IF compilers are free
>already. If you mean 'free' in the GPL sense (which seems unlikely,
>since you also suggest a BSD license), then this needs some more
>justification, since we have many times examined and found
>inconclusive the supposition that a GPL-like license is well-suited to
>IF-related thingies.
What we've actually decided is that the GPL is very badly suited for
actual IF works or libraries intended to be used in such works.
It would probably be desirable to have free (FSF sense) interpreters,
as they are the things people would probably most like to fiddle
with. It's not normally that difficult to change the user interface,
and that doesn't introduce gratuitous incompatibilities that are
going to cause problems later.
As you point out, compilers are *hard*, so it is less likely that
people are going to want to fiddle with them. Moreover, a variant
terp is not a problem, but a variant compiler would likely either
be pointless or a great way to render a game incompatible with
future versions.
I do sympathize with the attitude that you're dependent on the
continuing good will of the copyright holders, but that does
not look to me like a pressing concern.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
David Thornley
Quintin Stone <st...@rps.net> wrote:
>
>Ooh, how about a Perl-based language. :) I don't mean written in Perl, I
>mean with Perl-style syntax.
>
David Thornley
>
>Not trying to sound negative, but you're dealing with an entrenched
>mentality here. You're on your own.
>
No, there's no entrenched mentality (or at least not much). However,
Dan vaguely mentioned a big task with no clear and obvious payoff, and
regulars on r.a.i.f have seen that happen plenty of times. I'm sure
he'd get good answers to more specific questions.
>Good luck, though. I think it will be a worthwhile effort if you're up to
>it.
>
Maybe; it depends on what the actual product is. I'd like to see a
Lisp-like language, personally. Yet Another C/C++-Lookalike Compiler
would almost certainly not be worthwhile.
L. Ross Raszewski
<junkaccou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I wouldn't call GPL a cage which encloses people, but it
>is a restrictive system since it does restrict you from caging
>yourself or others. Perhaps the analogy might be that GPL is
>a locked cage where you (and everyone else) is on the outside.
>You are restricted from going inside and getting locked in and
>from locking others inside as well.
This is typical gpl-drone thinking. It is a cage. It restricts what
you do. The only reason you think it's not a cage is because it has
the magically misused word "Freedom" stamped on it. In what way is it
not a cage (please restrict yourself to answers that can't be applied
to other licenses, particularly the inform license.)
> On a personal level, I still feel that GPL is "more free"
>than the Inform license because the GPL makes me feel encouraged
>to write IF while Inform's license makes me feel discouraged to
>do so. I think that it all depends on what things you perceive
>to be inside the cage, what things you perceive to be on the
>outside, what things you value, and which side of the cage you
>believe they are on.
This is because you decided ahead of time to misinterpret inform's license.
Carl Muckenhoupt
Note that it is possible to release software under the GPL (or another
"free" license), and also release it under a different license at the same
time, allowing people to decide which terms they prefer. So if any IF
language authors want a convert to their system, all you have to do is send
this fellow a copy of your source code with a GPL tacked on. It doesn't
need to affect how your software is distributed elsewhere.
Elber
How about in the "official FAQ"...."Please please please use a specialized
IF authoring system!"
Come on.
"David Thornley" <thor...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:3e1c3b70$0$24018$a186...@newsreader.visi.com...
Quintin Stone
> You've seen no evidence of an entrenched mentality?
>
> How about in the "official FAQ"...."Please please please use a
> specialized IF authoring system!"
>
> Come on.
Because all of the comp games using homegrown parsers do oh so well in the
ranking.
Pissing Bandit
Diverse Hands wrote:
[paraphrased]
"GPL good!" "GPL bad!" "Inform license not GPL!" "Inform bad!"
"Inform good!" "RMS bad!" "Graham Good!" &c.
Gentlemen, Your Cheerios, Please.
<zzzzzip>
<whiz whiz whiz whiz whiz>
<zzzzzip>
Yrs. Faithfully,
The Pissing Bandit
Mike Roberts
> "David Thornley" <thor...@visi.com> wrote:
> > Elber <El...@whateverland.net> wrote:
> > >Not trying to sound negative, but you're dealing with an
> > >entrenched mentality here. You're on your own.
> >
> > No, there's no entrenched mentality (or at least not much).
>
>
> How about in the "official FAQ"...."Please please please use
> a specialized IF authoring system!"
That's merely advice based on experience; I don't see how it indicates an
"entrenched mentality." The purpose of any newsgroup's FAQ is to relate the
consensus answer to the most common questions that newcomers ask; it
wouldn't be very useful if every question were answered with something like
"yes and no and everything in between!" or a transcript of every past
discussion on the subject.
Maybe by "entrenched mentality" you simply meant that there's a consensus on
certain questions among people who are knowledgeable about the subject. If
so, it might have been clearer if you'd chosen a different way of putting
it; "entrenched mentality" connotes a closed-minded adherence to dogmatic
beliefs or conventional wisdom even in the face of contrary evidence. Do
you think the FAQ answer you cited is evidence of this?
--Mike
mjr underscore at hotmail dot com
Gadget
wrote:
>You've seen no evidence of an entrenched mentality?
>
>How about in the "official FAQ"...."Please please please use a specialized
>IF authoring system!"
>
>Come on.
>
I've coded in C. I've coded in Logo. I've coded in Euphoria. I've
coded in six variants of BASIC... I've coded in an embryonic
home-grown IF language. Hell I've even coded in Algol (yes really).
And I can say from experience that none of the above hold a candle to
Inform when it comes to IF creation.
Okay, there is a tendency here to say "no" first and then discuss a
subject. But as I've said before: this is a conservative crowd by
nature since we spend lots of free time on the oldest form of
electronic entertainment.
We're the equivalent of musicians who refuse to compose with anything
more sophisticated then banging rocks together (but we use custom, non
GPL rocks which are ground to perfection for our rock-banging needs).
We are the last worshipers of the Implementors... The caretakers of
the boarded up white house... The only ones who not only know what
xyzzy means and try it again and again in the games we play and even
dedicate *webpages* to it. We are the people who actually laugh at any
occurrence of a 'mazes with twisty passages' in any medium we come
across.
So to sum things up: We are rock-banging, implementor worshipping,
boarded up white house loving, xyzzy typing maze-o-philes (who hate
mazes in any shape or form that involves mapping) and we're damn proud
of that!
Join us. Type xyzzy with us. But don't try to change us. You might as
well ask us to write first person shooters.
Nikos Chantziaras
Everyone knows that the GPL is the One And True License. The whole world
should be GPLed. Everyone who hates the GPL is a Nazi and against
democracy. Everyone who is unaware of the benefits the GPL provides to the
individual is living in darkness.
-- Niko
dgr...@cs.csbuak.edu
> Personally, I think that doing a cleanroom Inform implementation
> is probably less desirable than a new language. Others may
> disagree.
Agreed. I see no point in reimplementing an Inform compiler. If anything
is going to be cleanroomed, I think it would be more worthwhile to do it
to ZIL. That will probably require the assistance of some ex-Infocom
people.
--
David Griffith
dgr...@cs.csubak.edu
Howard
across a single case of somebody suing someone else for anything.
If all this is really an issue for you why not just contact Graham
Nelson directly and seek his permissions for what you are proposing?
Howard
http://www.malinche.net
Benjamin Fan wrote:
> Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>
>>The Inform license says that the compiler can be distributed freely.
>>Therefore, it cannot be taken away from you. There will always be
>>copies on the Archive (and other such places).
>>
>>The worst the copyright owner can do is to forbid there ever being
>>another official version of the compiler. Even if that occurs, updates
>>could be maintained indefinitely as a set of patches.
>>
>
> The license gives permission to distribute, but it
> states that distributed copies cannot be "substantially
> different from those archived by the author". This is
> somewhat ambiguous (how do you define "substantially
> different"?), and I believe that the most conservative
> legal interpretation would be that distributing any
> modified version is not allowed-- even versions
> designated as "non-official".
>
> The license also has a "no profit" clause which does
> not seem to meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
> The term "no profit involved" is ambiguous, but the
> conservative legal interpretation would seem to imply that
> no money can be exchanged in any capacity when Inform is
> distributed.
>
> I suppose that it could be argued that that the
> original Inform could be distributed on a disk along with
> the modifications in patch format. Also, I suppose that
> one could argue that it is allowable to charge money for
> the disk and patches, and that Inform itself is being given
> away as a free bonus. However, given the wording of the
> license, I do not think that these arguments would hold
> if the lawyers/solicitors were to come calling.
>
> Have there been any additional permissions granted
> that are not in the license text included with Inform
> 6.21.3? Have any written clarifications of the license ever
> been made? Perhaps the license sections for which I have
> concerns have since been clarified or modified.
>
> The full text of the Inform license is below:
>
> Copyright on Inform, the program and its source code, its example games
> and documentation (including this book) is retained by Graham Nelson,
> who asserts the moral right to be identified as the author under the
> Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Having said this, I am happy
> for it to be freely distributed to anybody who wants a copy, provided
> that: (a) distributed copies are not substantially different from those
> archived by the author, (b) this and other copyright messages are
> always retained in full, and (c) no profit is involved. (Exceptions to
> these rules must be negotiated directly with the author.) However, a
> story file produced with the Inform compiler (and libraries) then
> belongs to its author, and may be sold for profit if desired, provided
> that its game banner contains the information that it was compiled by
> Inform, and the Inform version number.
>
> Ben
>
> P.S. Looking at the license again, I also notice that permission
> to distribute Inform is not actually granted. "I am happy for it
> to be freely distributed" does not have the same meaning as "I
> grant permission to you to freely distribute it."
>
>
Kevin Forchione
news:lSYS9.5725$j5.75522@news...
> You've seen no evidence of an entrenched mentality?
>
> How about in the "official FAQ"...."Please please please use a specialized
> IF authoring system!"
>
> Come on.
The exact question/response is:
Should I use Visual Basic, or is there a better language?
Please, please, PLEASE, use a specialized IF authoring system!
This question/answer is of course directed to game authors, not language
authors. There are too many sensibilities in this answer to ennumerate, and
it is the appropriate answer to give a game author. One can hardly recommend
a general purpose language over a specialized one in a problem domain as
complex and specific as IF. The suitability of any language must be driven
by the specificities of the problem domain.
It is also the appropriate starting point for the attitude to be taken by a
systems author. His query was directed toward the development of an IF
authoring language. As such he could do no better than to follow the advice
given in raif by others who have developed IF authoring languages. They are
to be commended for their courage, dedication, and the professionalism they
have brought to bear on the task. To be successful, an IF author must first
and for foremost respect the pact he is making with his customers, to
deliver the best product he is capable of, a product that facillitates the
game author's ability to express the spark of their creative genius.
Having participated in some small way in the development of TADS 3, I can
affirm that systems development is not something one should enter into
lightly. TADS 3 is an excellent illustration of the development system that
leveraged the wisdom and experience of the IF community to great advantage,
and successfully pushes the edge of the envelop.
Come on. The latter half of the 90s should have been an adequate cautionary
tale against the folly of those who would esteem exuberance over knowledge,
and niavete over experience.
--Kevin
Benjamin Fan
> You've seen no evidence of an entrenched mentality?
>
> How about in the "official FAQ"...."Please please please use a specialized
> IF authoring system!"
Actually, that is not the "official FAQ". That is from the
brief IFaq. The actual official FAQ is quite friendly on the
issue of non-popular game systems:
--> However, quite a few people write their own system in C or
--> BASIC or another language, either focused solely around a
--> single game or as an expandable language. It is easier to
--> use a pre-made system, and they will offer more portability.
--> It will also stop you from having to remake the wheel. However,
--> if you want to make your own system, nobody's going to stop you
--> (well, they shouldn't, at least). It would probably be a good
--> idea to look at the current systems to get a basic idea of what
--> to do.
One might get the impression that there is an entrenched
mentality just because people are more likely to post negative
comments than positive comments. There is an anecdote that 9 out
of 10 people will tell another person about a negative customer
service experience, but only 2 out of 10 will tell about a positive
experience. I think that the same principle is applicable to
newsgroup comments.
I personally think that writing new game systems and languages
is a worthwhile activity which provides a benefit to the community.
It's also fun. It may be useful just to ignore the negative
comments and to keep in mind that there is probably a larger,
silent audience who wishes to encourage you in your efforts to
{write your own language, make your own game system, write GPL
software, etc.}
Andrew Plotkin
> P.S. Looking at the license again, I also notice that permission
> to distribute Inform is not actually granted. "I am happy for it
> to be freely distributed" does not have the same meaning as "I
> grant permission to you to freely distribute it."
You're looking at an older copy of the Inform license. The current one
is:
The Inform software may be freely distributed provided that: (a)
distributed copies are not substantially different from those archived
by the author, (b) this and other copyright messages are always
retained in full, and (c) no profit is involved. The same conditions
apply to distribution or conversion of any electronic form of this
book which may be made available by the author. Exceptions to these
conditions must be negotiated directly with the author.
A story file produced with the Inform system belongs to whoever wrote
it and may be sold for profit if so desired, without the need for
royalty payment, provided that it prints a game banner conforming to
the standard library's banner at an early stage in play: in
particular, this banner must contain the information that the story
file was compiled by Inform, and the version numbers of compiler and
library used.
Elber
approaches the meaning of my original statement.
"Gadget" <gad...@SPAMBLOCKhaha.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:920p1vsqcghf2nd2q...@4ax.com...
Elber
"hard" was not bothered with.
Sadly, it's ironic that you would have been against the development of TADS
had you been presented with the idea early on. But it's easy to accept it
now.
It's as self-contradictory as some jazz fans who rail against any change in
the music, while owing the very existence of the art to the fundamental
desire for experimentation, change, and hard work.
"Kevin Forchione" <ke...@lysseus.com> wrote in message
news:qL4T9.195$jG7...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
David Thornley
><junkaccou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn't call GPL a cage which encloses people, but it
>>is a restrictive system since it does restrict you from caging
>>yourself or others. Perhaps the analogy might be that GPL is
>>a locked cage where you (and everyone else) is on the outside.
>>You are restricted from going inside and getting locked in and
>>from locking others inside as well.
>
>This is typical gpl-drone thinking. It is a cage. It restricts what
>you do.
So does every commercial license agreement I've seen.
The only reason you think it's not a cage is because it has
>the magically misused word "Freedom" stamped on it. In what way is it
>not a cage (please restrict yourself to answers that can't be applied
>to other licenses, particularly the inform license.)
>
No, the reason is presumably that it forbids him to do what he would
not want to do. There are quite a few legal constraints on my
actions that I never notice.
Moreover, the problem is not with the license. It is in no way
more restrictive than most commercial licenses (which, for example,
normally forbid you from distributing source code to all and
sundry). It allows you to do things that commercial licenses
typically don't. The only real restriction in the GPL is
redistribution, and that is typically not an issue with commercial
code.
Therefore, the GPL is a heck of a lot more free than most
commercial code. This is a perfectly valid way to look at
it.
Now, there is inflexibility over free software, but it's not really
in the licenses, but the people who hold the copyright. There's
nothing stopping a copyright holder from releasing it GPLed and
selling more commercial licenses, for example. Just don't
expect the FSF to do this.
>> On a personal level, I still feel that GPL is "more free"
>>than the Inform license because the GPL makes me feel encouraged
>>to write IF while Inform's license makes me feel discouraged to
>>do so.
It's obviously more something, but "free" is not necessarily the
right word. More agreeable?
On the other hand, it certainly is arguable that the GPL is more
free than the Inform license, since again the GPL is restrictive
when you distribute, but actually less so than the Inform license.
I think that it all depends on what things you perceive
>>to be inside the cage, what things you perceive to be on the
>>outside, what things you value, and which side of the cage you
>>believe they are on.
>
To some extent, yes. A license that favors what you want
is always more comfortable.
>This is because you decided ahead of time to misinterpret inform's license.
Nope; Inform is not released as free *or* open source software.
In particular, you do not have the right to distribute modified
versions. Right now, this isn't a problem. Over time, it could
be one. Right now, there's no great need to distribute changed
versions, and Graham Nelson is more or less available and reasonable.
If something were to happen to him, the future of Inform would
become more difficult.
In contrast, I've got CVS source code here, and I've got the
right to change it and redistribute it as I please. This means
that, if the current developer's group were to disappear or
drop out (and this looked uncomfortably likely in 1999), anybody
else could pick up where they left off. There would be no
legal entanglements whatsoever.
As long as Graham Nelson lives, communicates, and is reasonable,
there's no practical difference between the two. It's what happens
afterward that is problematic.
David Thornley
Matthew Russotto <russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>In article <avdmpg$1hscq$1...@hades.csu.net>, <dgr...@cs.csbuak.edu> wrote:
>>David Betz <db...@xlisper.mv.com> wrote:
>>> I got it when Infocom was closing down their office in Cambridge. At the
>>> time, I was working on contract with Activision (the owners of Infocom) to
>>> provide them with a modified version of my AdvSys IF language for use in one
>>> of their games.
>>
>>Odd. I thought all traces of that language ZIL have disappeared except
>>for tiny fragments, one of which is reproduced in the IDM4.
>
>Some people have darkly hinted that they have the original sources for
>Zork (check Google), so I doubt that's so.
>
Seeing that there is no commercial use for ZIL or original Zork
code, it would be nice if Activision (or whoever the copyright
holder is) would release it as public domain or something else
free and open, and it would be nice for the holders to then
publish. (I leave the transference of the ZIL manual to
electronic form as an exercise for the reader.)
Would anybody who has something interesting a la ZIL be interested
in such publication, if there are no legal obstacles?
Dan Shiovitz
[Top-posting in response to Kevin Forchione]
>Oh how little would have been done on this earth if everything that was
>"hard" was not bothered with.
>
>Sadly, it's ironic that you would have been against the development of TADS
>had you been presented with the idea early on. But it's easy to accept it
>now.
>
>It's as self-contradictory as some jazz fans who rail against any change in
>the music, while owing the very existence of the art to the fundamental
>desire for experimentation, change, and hard work.
It's interesting that you complain about the lack of people willing to
do hard work since, like, the only hard work I see you doing is
complaining, whereas Kevin, Mike Roberts, and the other people you're
griping about are actually busy writing the kind of new and innovative
IF libraries and systems you're only dreaming about.
I am perfectly happy to call your bluff here -- feel free to produce
something. I don't care what, anything at all that is an actual piece
of code or a library or a new IF authoring system, and I will go ahead
and use it and write up a review for the newsgroup about it, and
include a link on my webpage and do whatever other promotion that
comes to mind.
I realize this might be a little more work for you than just whining
on the newsgroup about how everyone here is out to stifle innovation,
and it might even require actual thought and effort to be put in, but
hey, how little would have been done on this earth if everything that
was "hard" was not bothered with, right?
This same offer is open to anyone reading this who feels the current
IF community is too insular -- send me email when you've actually
produced something and I promise I'll make sure it doesn't get
ignored. I'm perfectly happy to promise this because I predict nobody
will actually take me up on it.
--
Dan Shiovitz :: d...@cs.wisc.edu :: http://www.drizzle.com/~dans
"He settled down to dictate a letter to the Consolidated Nailfile and
Eyebrow Tweezer Corporation of Scranton, Pa., which would make them
realize that life is stern and earnest and Nailfile and Eyebrow Tweezer
Corporations are not put in this world for pleasure alone." -PGW
Quintin Stone
> Oh how little would have been done on this earth if everything that was
> "hard" was not bothered with.
>
> Sadly, it's ironic that you would have been against the development of
> TADS had you been presented with the idea early on. But it's easy to
> accept it now.
I don't recall seeing any messages "against" this guy developing a new
language. I saw several warnings about the breadth of such a task (such
as the one I wrote), some pointing out that there is no real info out
there on creating a new IF language from scratch, and a few people stating
the fact there are already a lot of IF languages out already. Now correct
me if I'm wrong, but when TADS was first created, there weren't a whole
lot of other choices available. Inform. Any others? The only sad thing
is how you insist on harping on this crisis that seems to be entirely in
your head.
Daryl McCullough
>
>Oh how little would have been done on this earth if everything that was
>"hard" was not bothered with.
>
>Sadly, it's ironic that you would have been against the development of TADS
>had you been presented with the idea early on. But it's easy to accept it
>now.
>
>It's as self-contradictory as some jazz fans who rail against any change in
>the music, while owing the very existence of the art to the fundamental
>desire for experimentation, change, and hard work.
To me, it is just a question of what you are hoping to accomplish by
creating a new IF programming language. Is your new language supposed
to be easier to use than the existing languages? Is it supposed to be
more powerful? Does it address some flaw in existing languages? If what
you are ultimately interested in is creating works of IF, then it is
probably a better use of your time to concentrate on those works, rather
than on the language. The existing languages are probably good enough.
Of course, you could just be wanting to create a new language for the
challenge and fun of it. In that case: more power to you!
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Elber
>
> Of course, you could just be wanting to create a new language for the
> challenge and fun of it. In that case: more power to you!
I think that is really the spirit that I'm referring to; which probably
shouldn't be quelled lest we lose some valuable new ideas in the process.
Cheers EL
ka...@henchmonkey.org
> This same offer is open to anyone reading this who feels the current
> IF community is too insular -- send me email when you've actually
> produced something and I promise I'll make sure it doesn't get
> ignored. I'm perfectly happy to promise this because I predict nobody
> will actually take me up on it.
*frantically digging around for notes on Gloo*
Gadget
wrote:
>On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Elber wrote:
>
>> Oh how little would have been done on this earth if everything that was
>> "hard" was not bothered with.
>>
>> Sadly, it's ironic that you would have been against the development of
>> TADS had you been presented with the idea early on. But it's easy to
>> accept it now.
>
>I don't recall seeing any messages "against" this guy developing a new
>language. I saw several warnings about the breadth of such a task (such
>as the one I wrote), some pointing out that there is no real info out
>there on creating a new IF language from scratch, and a few people stating
>the fact there are already a lot of IF languages out already. Now correct
>me if I'm wrong, but when TADS was first created, there weren't a whole
>lot of other choices available. Inform. Any others? The only sad thing
>is how you insist on harping on this crisis that seems to be entirely in
>your head.
>
Nitpicking here: Inform came *after* TADS.
Stephen Granade
In general it is not, unless by "shouldn't be quelled" you mean "no
cautionary statements of any kind should be given." If someone says,
"I want to create a new IF language!" in general the replies will
point out that this is a daunting task, that there is little
information on the subject available, and that the best source of
information are the currently-existing systems. All of which replies,
in fact, were given to the post which started this thread.
Stephen
--
Stephen Granade
ste...@granades.com
Quintin Stone
> Nitpicking here: Inform came *after* TADS.
Really? Thanks for the info. :) Guess that makes my point even more
valid.
Benjamin Fan
entitled to have an opinion.
I disagreed with most of Kevin's post, and I am glad that
Elber spoke up about it.
I do not think that the opinions of non-developers should
be discounted.
But, thank you for your gracious offer to promote JIGSAW,
the Java Interactive Game System Authorship W!
Ben
--
To get my current email address, concatenate these three strings:
1. "benjamin_fan" 2. "_2002a" 3. "@yahoo.com"
It will look a lot like: xxxxxxxx_yyy_zzzzz @ yahoo . com
Kevin Forchione
> Oh how little would have been done on this earth if everything that was
> "hard" was not bothered with.
>
> Sadly, it's ironic that you would have been against the development of
TADS
> had you been presented with the idea early on. But it's easy to accept it
> now.
>
> It's as self-contradictory as some jazz fans who rail against any change
in
> the music, while owing the very existence of the art to the fundamental
> desire for experimentation, change, and hard work.
I'm not sure how you have drawn these conclusions from my argument, but it
would be irresponsible of me not to stand by the advice given.
Life is, after all, full of complexity, much of which appears to be
contradictory. Jazz, for instance. We would not have the body of work that
is Jazz were it not for its staunch, devoted (dare I say, entrenched!)
followers. Neither would we have Jazz had it not been for the work of
classically-trained musicians, knowledgeable in their craft.
Would I have been against the development of TADS in its early days? I can
only anwer that question by stating that I have fully supported the
development of PAWS, even though I don't actively program in it. But I was
fully against the development of New Coke... and it seems I was justified.:)
Let me be clear though, there's a difference between being a consumer of
soft drinks and a producer of soft drinks. Those who drink a particular
brand (or listen to Jazz) have every right to brand loyalty, to expect a
certain level of quality and consistency of product, and to snub their noses
at any attempt to subversion of form in ways that do not promise to be as
aesthetically pleasing and enriching as their current favorite. Producers of
soft drinks (or Jazz musicians, or perhaps more appropriately, manufacturers
of musical instruments) have a clear obligation to know what they're about
and the responsibility they have to their audiences/players.
And yes, it's all hard work. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling
something.
--Kevin
Soon-Min Yee
> I have been searching on the net for a while for ways to make your own IF
> programming lnaguage but I can't find anything so far. I know C/C++. If
> anyone one has any helpful info that would be appreciated. Thanks.
I was always curious about something with all of this regarding
creating new languages. What stops someone from taking, say, Inform
source and writing basically the same type of engine but just calling
it something different? Obviously anyone would be able to tell
similarity immediately but is there anything stopping this? I ask
because it seem like Hugo is very similar in nature to Inform in that
respect. I guess same could be asked about TADS. Let's say someone
takes the core source and writes their own compiler and engine that
only differs slightly from TADS-Original and then calls it something
entirely different. Is this illegal? (Mind, I have no plans to do
something like this. I'm just curious.)
Elber
Windows-based PC is irrelevant.
<ka...@henchmonkey.org> wrote in message
news:10421477...@nntp.acecape.com...
Elber
there's a difference between "if you are looking for a quick start and you
don't want to reinvent a difficult wheel, use..." and "PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
use a specialized IF authoring system!"
The former is the cautionary advice you supposedly endorse, the latter a
normalizing statement based on an entrenched bias.
I don't expect you to see it; you're one of the enrobed NG "elite
uber-council". Don't get too worried about what I say, I'm not anybody
"important". I'm just what you might call a "troll" or a "newbie who
doesn't know how the NG works yet".
"Stephen Granade" <ste...@granades.com> wrote in message
news:ubs2p6...@granades.com...
Stephen Granade
> Since I've written my own game system, I guess that I am
> entitled to have an opinion.
>
> I disagreed with most of Kevin's post, and I am glad that
> Elber spoke up about it.
>
> I do not think that the opinions of non-developers should
> be discounted.
Hm. I haven't seen anyone truly saying that. I have seen people saying
that, while the opinions of those who haven't done much work in IF yet
do still have value, they're not going to be given as much weight as
those who have done work in IF. To my mind that's a reasonable
statement: if you haven't shown any expertise in a given field, I'm
less likely to give your opinion a tremendous amount of weight. This
doesn't mean that the community is insular. Far from it. There have
been a number of people who have joined the community and produced
amazing works. Coming in and saying, "I know how things should be
done!" without giving anything to back up your statements is far less
useful than coming in with an example of how you think things should
be done.
I'm curious as to what you disagreed with in Kevin's post. Were you
reading into it the opinion that non-developers' thoughts carry no
weight? That's nowhere to be found in Kevin's post. He said, in
essence:
* The answer to "Should I program IF in Visual Basic" is "Please use a
specialized IF language."
* This answer is directed to game *authors*, not language authors.
* It's still a decent starting point for someone wanting to write a
language. If you're going to write an IF language, why not learn
from what was done before by looking at TADS, Hugo, Inform, &c.?
* I've done a little bit of work in the development of T3, and I can
tell you that it's difficult.
* Enthusiasm is not a substitute for knowledge.
I suppose that, given your disagreement with most of Kevin's post, I
should ask you instead what you *do* agree with from the above list.
Quintin Stone
> I don't expect you to see it; you're one of the enrobed NG "elite
> uber-council". Don't get too worried about what I say, I'm not anybody
> "important". I'm just what you might call a "troll" or a "newbie who
> doesn't know how the NG works yet".
Actually, I'd call you a "guy with an enormous chip on his shoulder."
Richard Bos
[ Do not top-post. ]
> <ka...@henchmonkey.org> wrote in message
>
> > *frantically digging around for notes on Gloo*
>
> Do you use Windows? I've come across not a few people here who believe a
> Windows-based PC is irrelevant.
Imprimis: non sequitur. Secundis: I think you're over-reacting again, as
usual. Most people here are not quite as drooling Billy-slaves as the
average game-boy, but that does't mean that Windows-based PCs are
irrelevant. It just means that something that is Windows-_only_ is less
likely to attract a significant portion of players as something that is
portable across multiple platforms. This has nothing to do with
irrelevance and everything with basic maths.
Richard
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
> Oh how little would have been done on this earth if everything that was
> "hard" was not bothered with.
> Sadly, it's ironic that you would have been against the development of TADS
> had you been presented with the idea early on. But it's easy to accept it
> now.
> It's as self-contradictory as some jazz fans who rail against any change in
> the music, while owing the very existence of the art to the fundamental
> desire for experimentation, change, and hard work.
Yes, yes, you're totally creative and innovative, while the RAIF Cabal
stifles all creative impulse... Why, I'm risking my very life by
working on Aiee! in public. So what are you making, Mr. Super-creative?
In any case, what does it matter to you, what a FAQ says as advice to
new text adventure authors? It even says "PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE", not
"Several large unpleasant men will pay you a visit if you don't do what
we want".
Get over it. Write a text adventure or a new authoring system or
whatever you want. Just stop whining.
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"We remain convinced that this is the best defensive posture to adopt in
order to minimize casualties when the Great Old Ones return from beyond
the stars to eat our brains." -Charlie Stross, _The Concrete Jungle_
ka...@henchmonkey.org
> Do you use Windows? I've come across not a few people here who believe a
> Windows-based PC is irrelevant.
>
If that's what you think you've read, you're mistaken. What people have
said is that there are a much larger proportion of IF players use
operating systems that aren't Windows than the population in general.
So if you want to write a new system, and you want it not to be Windows,
you have to expect a certain number of people (myself included) won't be
able to play it. If you want to limit your audience, that's your
decision.
katre
Elber
Thanks for coming out anyway.
"Quintin Stone" <st...@rps.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.03011...@yes.rps.net...
Elber
is "whining". Lemme guess what your opinion is of those who demonstrate to
further causes that are important to them.
"Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes" <kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnb1ttrh....@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu...
Gadget
wrote:
Practically there is nothing stopping you (except programming ability
of course...) But legally you would be in trouble. Imagine this: if
you would write a book called 'Ruler of the Ring' which tells the tale
of a Nobbit called Dodo, who together with Randalf the Wizard must
destroy the Only Ring by throwing it in the Flaming Hill of Doom then
chances are someone with a briefcase and a court order would be
knocking on your door pretty quickly ;-)
You are not allowed to copy some ones work and just replace some minor
stuff. Of course it happens all the time, but copyright law is there
to protect authors against this very thing.
David Thornley
Stephen Granade <sgra...@phy.duke.edu> wrote:
>junkaccou...@yahoo.com (Benjamin Fan) writes:
>
>> Since I've written my own game system, I guess that I am
>> entitled to have an opinion.
>>
attention to it is the hard part.
>Hm. I haven't seen anyone truly saying that. I have seen people saying
>that, while the opinions of those who haven't done much work in IF yet
>do still have value, they're not going to be given as much weight as
>those who have done work in IF.
This is the case with every community I've seen. In open source
projects, the opinions of the people who code get more weight.
In discussions on computer language designers, the opinions of
compiler writers get more weight.
To my mind that's a reasonable
>statement: if you haven't shown any expertise in a given field, I'm
>less likely to give your opinion a tremendous amount of weight.
To put this another way: any clown with Usenet access can post.
An unfortunate number of them do. Therefore, to avoid being taken
for one, it is necessary to differentiate yourself somehow.
There are various ways, but contributing something is a way of
establishing your commitment, and demonstrating the ability to
do something is a way of establishing your expertise.
>amazing works. Coming in and saying, "I know how things should be
>done!" without giving anything to back up your statements is far less
>useful than coming in with an example of how you think things should
>be done.
>
Not to mention: when the people in the community are pretty uniform
in saying something they should know about, there's a good chance
they're right. Even if they aren't, there are reasons why they
hold that opinion, and these generally aren't bad reasons.
If you're going to try something that people discourage you from,
the best thing you can do is try to find out why they're discouraging
you. If nothing else, this will show you where some of the problems
are that you will need to deal with.
I'm not saying that people outside the establishment with fixed
ideas about things are always wrong: Einstein did his best work
as a technical expert in the Swiss patent office, and claimed that
he knew how the Universe worked in some ways, and laid it down in
black and white. Sounds like a crank to you? However, he had
studied the physics of his day, and was very familiar with it.
Similarly, if you think you know how things should be done, and
are coming from nowhere, and such an establishment as you have
disagrees with you, you may be right, but if you don't find out
why people are discouraging you you're setting yourself up for
failure.
Quintin Stone
> In your clever retort you failed to address the substance of the
> message. Thanks for coming out anyway.
You aren't interested in what anyone has to say anyway. This is already
quite evident from your previous posts.
Nikos Chantziaras
> > What stops someone from taking, say, Inform source and writing
> > basically the same type of engine but just calling it something
> > say someone takes the core source and writes their own compiler
> > and engine that only differs slightly from TADS-Original and
> > then calls it something entirely different. Is this illegal?
>
> [...]
> Imagine this: if you would write a book called 'Ruler of the Ring'
> which tells the tale of a Nobbit called Dodo, who together with
> Randalf the Wizard must destroy the Only Ring by throwing it in
> the Flaming Hill of Doom then chances are someone with a
> briefcase and a court order would be knocking on your door pretty
> quickly ;-)
What? There's still a copyright on Lord? I thought that the copyright
expires after a certain amount of time has passed (I think 75 years in the
US).
-- Niko
Elber
shutting people out or anything. If my tone is such, I don't want you to
interpret it that way.
I would simply wish for a more encouraging culture for development of
"rogue" IF systems. Sure, most of them are cack because they are often
riddled with enough shortcuts to make them about as playable as Lost
Dutchman's Gold (an old Applesoft BASIC adventure game). But I think
there's something in them thar hills.....
"Quintin Stone" <st...@rps.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.03011...@yes.rps.net...
L. Ross Raszewski
>
>What? There's still a copyright on Lord? I thought that the copyright
>expires after a certain amount of time has passed (I think 75 years in the
>US).
>
Copyright in the US lasts for the author's life plus X years, where X is the
number of years since the release of "Steamboat Willie".
But seriously, LOTR is not that old.
L. Ross Raszewski
>
>there's a difference between "if you are looking for a quick start and you
>don't want to reinvent a difficult wheel, use..." and "PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
>use a specialized IF authoring system!"
>
>The former is the cautionary advice you supposedly endorse, the latter a
>normalizing statement based on an entrenched bias.
No, the latter represents that a FAQ's responsibility is not to recite
the years and years of consideration that have led to the conclusion.
>
>I don't expect you to see it; you're one of the enrobed NG "elite
>uber-council". Don't get too worried about what I say, I'm not anybody
>"important". I'm just what you might call a "troll" or a "newbie who
>doesn't know how the NG works yet".
You'll be thankful for the cabal when the aliens come. (TINC).
Also "Please please please use an established authoring system" is
*not* the same as "don't write your own authoring system". Pay close
attention. THe former means "If you set out to write a game, don't try
to write it from scratch. You will fail. We've seen it. It would be
irresponsible of us to get your hopes up because the *overwhelming*
probability is that you will fail." However, writing your own
authoring system is a different task entirely. It is a daunting task,
few have been able to do it, and almost no one in recent years who has tried
has been able to provide any justification for *why* they think
another IF authoring system would be useful.
You have yet to produce anything but complaints. When you or anyone
else speak of the 'enrobed elite', or the 'cabal', it's always someone
like you, who has never contributed anything, complaining, and the
cabal is always people who have contributed something. The reason
you're not in the "enrobed elite" isn't because you're a newbie, or
because you haven't taken on the "entrenched attitude". It's because
you've *NEVER* contributed anything. You write your authoring system,
and if it doesn't suck, you'llbe one of us. But don't stand there
complaining and never write anything and then blame us. We have no
control over what you write. Yeah, we suggest you don't write an
authoring system, because it's Way Too Hard.
Also, you're top-posting. Stop that.
Nikos Chantziaras
Not before too long, a read about the copyright of Disney's "Mickey Mouse".
I thought LOTR is much older than that. (Can someone imagine Donald being
older than Gandalf? He, he...)
-- Niko
Soon-Min Yee
news:aq3u1vk6bp9r1sepn...@4ax.com...
> On 10 Jan 2003 04:47:11 -0800, SoonM...@yahoo.com (Soon-Min Yee)
> Practically there is nothing stopping you (except programming ability
> of course...) But legally you would be in trouble. Imagine this: if
> you would write a book called 'Ruler of the Ring' which tells the tale
> of a Nobbit called Dodo, who together with Randalf the Wizard must
> destroy the Only Ring by throwing it in the Flaming Hill of Doom then
> chances are someone with a briefcase and a court order would be
> knocking on your door pretty quickly ;-)
But then how do paraodies get written, where the names are very similar in
some cases? I'm thinking of the Discworld series as just one example. (I
realize though that the series of books does not use names that similar but
it is absolutely impossible not to see some of the parodies. Then again,
there was that case of that German author who wrote something too close to
Harry Potter and I think there was an attempt to sue him or something.) I
also notice that Hugo is very, very similar to Inform like I said. In fact,
the language structure is in some ways identical that it seems clear Hugo
was in some way derived from Inform. (Unless I'm way off base on that. I'm
not making accusations; just pointing it out.)
Even by this logic, Inform is very similar to Infocom format internally. Is
that right? I know it is not identical but isn't it based on the Z-Machine
concept? So is that close enough to Infocom format to be protected? Why was
Inform allowed to be a modified Infocom? Was it just because Infocom ended
up like the dinosaurs?
Just curious about all this because a lot of how this whole "free software"
and "open source" thing gets confusing to me sometimes, particularly when
everyone starts talking about BSDs and GPLs and whatever else. I'm always
wondering what actually protects the author when someone comes up with
another work that is *just* different enough. I wonder what the line for
that is: in other words, when is it considered different enough to be a
separate and legal creation as opposed to being a cheap knock-off that has
the lawyers coming in.
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
> Hmmm....saying there's something wrong and suggesting how it could be better
> is "whining". Lemme guess what your opinion is of those who demonstrate to
> further causes that are important to them.
It is whining when there's nothing particularly wrong.
As for my opinion of people who stand around protesting the random
fashionable cause of the week, rather than doing something useful with
their lives... Yeah, I bet you can guess that.
What is your specific problem? Who's oppressing you? Name names,
quote message IDs of their oppression so we can all look them up in
google. I mean it.
Adam Thornton
>Do you use Windows? I've come across not a few people here who believe a
>Windows-based PC is irrelevant.
I don't use it to develop on. It is not my environment of choice. Nor
is it the one I use at work or, usually, at home.
If you write a Windows-only IF system, I, for one, will cheerfully
ignore it. If you write a Windows-only game, I might eventually, if it
receives enough critical praise, install it on a Windows box and play
it.
If you write a Windows-only IF development system, unless it does
something spectacular, like fellate me each time I create a new object,
I will not bother with it.
I'd like to recap what Dan Shiovitz said, in rather more blunt terms:
Put up or shut up.
Adam
Andrew Plotkin
> L. Ross Raszewski wrote:
>>
>> Copyright in the US lasts for the author's life plus X years, where
>> X is the number of years since the release of "Steamboat Willie".
>>
>> But seriously, LOTR is not that old.
> Not before too long, a read about the copyright of Disney's "Mickey Mouse".
> I thought LOTR is much older than that.
Copyrights owned by corporations (more precisely, "work for hire") go
by a different rule -- it's 75 years after publication (95 for works
published before 1978). Personal copyrights are 70 years after the
author's death. (Current US law.)
Steamboat Willie (featuring Mickey Mouse): 1928
The Hobbit: 1937
LOTR: 1954-55
JRR Tolkien died in 1973. All his books will be under copyright until
2043.
The right to create parody is another topic entirely, and this is
already too tedious for RAIF.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Mike Roberts
> > Imagine this: if you would write a book called 'Ruler of the Ring'
> > which tells the tale of a Nobbit called Dodo, who together with
> > Randalf the Wizard must destroy the Only Ring by throwing it in
> > the Flaming Hill of Doom then chances are someone with a
> > briefcase and a court order would be knocking on your door
> > pretty quickly ;-)
>
> But then how do paraodies get written, where the names are very
> similar in some cases?
Parodies are a special case, at least in the US, where case law has made
them explicitly legal as fair use. What actually constitutes a parody is
open to interpretation, though. The legal battle in 2001 over "The Wind
Done Gone" (a novel based on "Gone with the Wind") is a relatively famous
example: the Mitchell estate claimed that "Done Gone" is simply a derived
work and thus infringes the "Gone with" copyright, and the publisher
countered that it's a parody and thus is non-infringing. (I think the
parody view ultimately prevailed.)
> Even by this logic, Inform is very similar to Infocom format
> internally. Is that right? I know it is not identical but isn't it
> based on the Z-Machine concept?
It's a bit more complicated than that. Inform compiles to the Z-machine -
not a similar format, but the exact same format that Infocom used. However,
Inform doesn't run the resulting games; that's up to the interpreters, which
are completely separate programs written and maintained by other people; so
Inform doesn't use the Z-machine in anything like the manner that Infocom's
game executables did. Furthermore, the source code language of Inform is
entirely unlike anything Infocom used, so that side of Inform is completely
original. Also, Inform itself was written from scratch, without access to
any original code from Infocom, so it can't be considered to be derived from
any Infocom software. The various freeware Z-machine interpreters were
likewise written from scratch. But, yes, Inform and the various Z-machine
interpreters do depend on the Z-machine format, so in that sense they're
based on Infocom's work.
Even though these programs use the Z-machine format, they probably don't
infringe on any copyrights. It's not clear to me that something like the
Z-machine is copyrightable, because it's not a work in any of the senses
that the copyright laws define the term; the Z-machine is more like an idea,
which isn't copyrightable, than it is like a work fixed in concrete form.
These sorts of things can be patented, but not copyrighted, and I don't
think I've heard of an example where anyone has successfully asserted
copyright protection for anything analogous. The closest direct analog I
can think of is the AMD clones of Intel CPU's, which are independent
implementations of the same instruction set; perhaps AMD has a licensing
arrangement with Intel that allows this, but I always thought they just
brazenly reimplemented it from the specification.
> I'm always wondering what actually protects the author when
> someone comes up with another work that is *just* different
> enough. I wonder what the line for that is: in other words, when
> is it considered different enough to be a separate and legal
> creation as opposed to being a cheap knock-off that has the
> lawyers coming in.
Simply stated, there is no such line; there's only a big gray area between
obviously original and obviously derived. Courts and lawyers exist largely
to resolve disputes over things that fall into such gray areas.
--Mike
mjr underscore at hotmail dot com
Adam Thornton
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>JRR Tolkien died in 1973. All his books will be under copyright until
>2043.
...presuming no further changes to extend copyright.
However, I have a request. Nay, a plea. A piteous supplication from
the bottom of my twisted, blackened, shrunken soul:
Let's not go here.
Adam